Comments on A building can look smaller without losing a floor - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Dave

Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:05:34 EDT

HPRB approved the revised concept, so clearly they got over their issues and agreed that the setbacks did the job.

Comment by Jonathan P

Thu, 28 Feb 2013 13:07:26 EDT

I understand the concern of the neighbors next to the alley behind the property, but I have little sympathy for them. They enjoy incredible access to the city (restaurants, bars, Metro station, bus lines, close to downtown, etc.) and have reaped the rewards of this access monetarily through increased property values.

Also, there are numerous other locations in the city with row houses and large apartment buildings of similar size in very close quarters, if not abutting. And many of these examples date back to the 1920s or earlier, so there's a clear, long-standing precedent for the relative scale of these types of developments. IIRC, this precedent was included in the staff report.

I recall the HPRB board member comments ('I'm just a boy from Capitol Hill... this seems tall') to be pretty ridiculous, all things considered. Given its ideal location, responsive design changes, and the city's need for more housing, let's hope this project is swiftly approved.

Comment by ET

Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:21:12 EDT

I think Jenkins Row across the street from the Potomac Metro did a pretty decent job of visually making the building smaller even it if it is big. The did some some setbacks and changes in heights but they also changed the material used. Instead of looking like one big building with one exterior which it is, they changed the brick type and other material to make it look like several.

As for the comparison of this project compared to Brookland, I think some of what is going on at Brookland is that what was there was basically a 2 story building and some other small scale stuff with basically a significantly sized bigger building. It is also going in a location that has not much else of that size making it seem that much bigger. Comparison to what was there as well as comparison to what is going to be around it makes a big difference.

Comment by Cavan

Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:13:13 EDT

I didn't say the anti-neighbors in those cities are any less unreasonable than our anti-neighbors. I hope they didn't get it. Baltimore needs the housing and population.

Comment by burgersub

Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:09:21 EDT

@drumz

Richmond and Baltimore have beautiful urban neighborhoods (The Fan, Museum District, Church Hill, Mt. Vernon, Charles Village, Federal Hill to name a few). Some of them have tall buildings as well. There are nice neighborhoods in DC that have tall buildings.

funny you mention charles village in this context. i live in the old goucher subsection of charles village and recently got active in the community association here. they are currently in the process of putting together a package of revisions they want to recommend to the planning department for our zoning update and i've been fighting to try to get some things taken out that include a downgrade of apartment zoning from 10 allowable stories to 6.

Comment by Thayer-d

Thu, 28 Feb 2013 05:57:38 EDT

Well said Sage!

Comment by Sage

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 23:09:23 EDT

@Chris 7:33pm

When an institution's position or decision is deemed unreasonable by most parties involved, hostility tends to develop toward the institution, particularly if it is seen as inflexible or nonproductive, again and again.

The long-running historic preservation controversy over the Third Church of Christ, Scientist at 16th and I St., NW, is a prime example. Against the wishes of nearly everyone involved, including the church itself, historic preservationists unreasonably continued to fight until the bitter end to save the structure. The key word here is "unreasonable." By being unreasonable, hostility was engendered and an unfavorable light was cast on the aims of historic preservation in general.

To be sure, on occasion it's important to fight hard for a position. But trying to keep the Third Church of Christ standing was not one of them. A lot of local historic preservation capital was expended in that battle, all for nought. It was a loser almost from the git-go. More importantly, it damaged the precepts of historic preservation because a good number of people began to see preservationists as slightly off-base wackos, or to use a more civil word, unreasonable.

Same goes for the proposed JBG development on U Street. This is a project that many want to see built. The developer has jumped through hoops to satisfy an almost unending number of demands. The line from reasonable to unreasonable is on the verge of being crossed, if not already.

Historic preservationists and their noteworthy institutions need to show flexibility. They must be reasonable. They need to know when to dig in their heels and when to let go. Continuing to push for changes to the JBG proposal is unreasonable and nonproductive.

Please note. I'm a big believer in historic preservation and have been a member of the National Trust. It's vital historic preservation activity continues and to robustly thrive. But going down the unreasonable route is not a road to success.

Comment by Richard Layman

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 22:26:10 EDT

n -- wrt that block in Brookland, see my previous point about "wack jobs." Another way to term it, would be people not very good at productively and constructively expressing themselves.

Comment by nathaniel

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:00:52 EDT

@Richard
I agree it is an important consideration with the Col Brooks project that it abuts houses, but this is sort of my point. If the residents of these houses had made a good faith effort to engage with the developers they may have gotten a better result that addressed this valid concern. Instead they just made objection after objection, and every time the the developer changed something, they came up with another reason. My favorite was when they insisted there must be an underground spring on the site even though the developers hydrologist couldn't find it and the residents didn't want to pay for their own assessment.

At some point the Col Brooks people just gave up working with them and pushed on.

It seems to me the same thing may result at the Cafritz on Connecticut, and unlike Col Brooks it doesn't require any variance, so unless those people engage in good faith they may not have their reasonable concerns addressed.

Comment by Chris

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:33:53 EDT

"further hostility toward... historic preservation in general"?

Why the hostility? I mean, outside of developers.

Comment by Sage

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:58:00 EDT

The building, as revised, looks beautiful!

The developer has gone the extra mile and has produced a stately design that will add a measure of elegance to the U Street neighborhood. It behooves the HPRB to come to its senses and approve this project in timely fashion. Not to do so will only generate further hostility toward the board and to historic preservation in general.

Comment by Thayer-d

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:13:28 EDT

I agree that many people hide behind these reviews and I'm pro development
But let's not paint with too broad a brush. It's possible to want a lot of growth and ask that it enhance what's already great about are city.

Comment by Cavan

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:56:03 EDT

Thayer-d, the point I'm trying to make is that the folks who complain about height usually aren't really complaining about height. We complain about height in our city because we're a special case and the anti-neighbors think that making that argument will get them more sympathy because we have a unique low and mid-rise skyline.

I'm pointing out that while it's good the building renderings look better, I agree with Nathaniel that I'm skeptical that it'll satisfy the complaining neighbors.

D.C. really needs to overhaul its approval process. The city (and region as a whole) needs more housing. We need to get better at calling obstructionism just what it is rather than letting obstructionists hide behind historic preservation or architectural styles or height or facade materials, or "sympathy to surroundings." Historical preservation standards need to be better defined to that everyone knows the rules before this process starts. Same with all other standards. We need to stop erring on the side of anti-neighbors (made sense when we had a shrinking city and the goal was to protect things from becoming parking and highways) and start erring on the side of the needs of a growing city.

Comment by Ward 1 Guy

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:55:09 EDT

@Rich, I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you saying that the north side of the 1300 block of U street is dead??? That "strip" has a popular Mexican restaurant with lively patio seating, a very heavily trafficked Thai restaurant, and ice cream/crepe shop that draws families, a mom and pop coffee shop, a residential building entrance, and constant foot traffic.

Comment by Ward 1 Guy

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:54:28 EDT

Kudos to the developers for putting up with these Wallach Place residents as long and as patiently as they have.

The building "seems overmassed" is the kind of generalized and content-free complaint that NIMBY wallach place residents have been muttering for years, leaving us with a one-story strip right on top of the one of the city's busiest transit nodes.

David is right. Local residents (of which I am one) should be grateful for the accommodations made by JBG.

Comment by Rich

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:08:10 EDT

It's not a "strip mall", it's just a strip, not much different from DC's many "streetcar strips" except it's newer. the building still seems overmassed and likely to make that strip as dead as the one across the street.

Comment by drumz

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:42:57 EDT

Again, height isn't the problem here (it rarely is) and really isn't even the reason most people would oppose this.

Comment by Chris

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:35:13 EDT

"Philadelphia and Baltimore also have buildings taller than seven stories. So do smaller cities like Richmond and Wilmington."

I am not sure that makes your argument. I'm not too familiar with Wilmington, but the others (outside of Philly's historic district) aren't exactly enviable urban environments.

Comment by Thayer-d

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:29:26 EDT

So if you prefer an 8 story building to read like a 7 story building because it's in a historic neighborhood full of 2-4 story rowhouses...you're an "inmate" of an insane asylum? Talk about hyperbole.

Just because Baltimore has taller buildings, how does that impact this particular site? Not sure every discussion of appropriate height needs to become a proxy for the height limit through out the city. This solution looks like a good compromise, even though a 15 story building might lower your rent by $10 a month. Then again, if you rebuild the whole neighborhood, you might get you're rent down $100 a month, I just don't know.

Comment by Cavan

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:34:59 EDT

It drives me crazy to hear people tap into the "Manhattan" hyperbole. Philadelphia and Baltimore also have buildings taller than seven stories. So do smaller cities like Richmond and Wilmington. So what? The only other city I can think of where people complain about buildings taller than two stories is London. It's pretty unusual in the United States to hear people complain about seven story buildings in core residential areas in walking distance of downtown.

David is correct that changing the look can be productive and show good faith on the developer's part. It can be very productive, if the neighbors don't move their goalposts because they actually desire no change whatsoever. I hope that's not the case with this 13th Street proposal (right next to the Metro!). I have to agree with Nathaniel that eventually you have to approve something and break ground. The inmates can't run they asylum. Otherwise, you'll never stabilize rents in the District and region as they'll remain scarce.

Comment by drumz

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:17:56 EDT

How does this building turn DC into Manhattan?

Do you know how many cities have 8 story buildings? All of them. The building I'm in currently has 10. There are 8 story buildings on U street.

So yeah, this is why we live in a city.

Comment by anon_1

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:09:10 EDT

Seems like the developers should try to minimize the visual impact irrespective of neighbors' complaints. Breaking up the massing with variation like the balconies and roofline just seem like sound design ideas. An architect with a real vision of a project wants the building to be compatible with its surroundings as much as any of the neighbors.

Comment by Thayer-d

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:08:25 EDT

"Raw height is not what causes claustrophobia"? You lost me there.

Comment by Alex B.

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:54:05 EDT

I am not sure if I was misunderstood, but I find DC's building height limits infinitely preferable to the claustrophobic concrete jungle of Manhattan.

That's a rather false comparison, however - isn't it?

For one, this project is not maxing out on the allowed height. It is shorter than what the Height Act allows.

Two, the comparison here is not between the Rite Aid building and the proposal, but between the two versions of the proposal.

Three, "Manhattan" is not exactly the opposite of DC's height limited city. Plenty of Manhattan is covered in buildings much shorter than the maximum allowed in DC. Conversely, plenty of DC's height-regulated areas are also full of concrete jungles (see parts of SW around L'Enfant Plaza).

Ergo, the raw height is not what causes clausterphobia, nor does DC's height limit prevent that condition.

Comment by Chris

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:44:39 EDT

I am not sure if I was misunderstood, but I find DC's building height limits infinitely preferable to the claustrophobic concrete jungle of Manhattan.

Comment by Christopher Dixon

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:25:51 EDT

I must say..the building does seem smaller

Comment by m2fc

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:21:11 EDT

I don't live in Manhattan because I don't have the $$$$.

Comment by Richard Layman

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:09:26 EDT

nathaniel, while I don't want to defend the wack jobs in Brookland, regardless of what you or I think about the Col. Brooks project, the fact of the matter is that it abuts against rowhouses and detached dwellings on the same block. I am not speaking about the merits of the case, just the reality of proximity and abutting.

Same goes with the project on U St. While I agree with David's post, you can see why people living across the alley, mostly in 2 story rowhouses, might have some concern about taller buildings.

Most of the projects in commercial districts do in fact abut some residential. But mostly, the general arguments from the neighborhood residents tend to reflexively argue against height, density, change, etc.

OTOH, you can argue that people shouldn't have chosen to live in abutting properties if they weren't prepared for the possibility of change. (I had those arguments with people in Brookland when I was the Main Street Manager then.)

Comment by andrew

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:02:29 EDT

*good

Comment by andrew

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:02:13 EDT

Goot point. Manhattan actually properly regulates setbacks. You wouldn't be allowed to build K Street in midtown.

I like the height limit, but would kill it in a heartbeat if it meant that we got rid of the zoning/regulations that allow places like K Street to exist, with a lengthy canyon of identically-tall buildings with flat facades and zero setback from the street. NoMA's also starting to feel awfully claustrophobic as it gets built out.

Back to the story at hand: I agree that the massing of the original building was pretty problematic, and this design does make a lot of improvements, even though the whole thing does still feel awfully monolithic. It's a good design tweak, but still way too indicative of the bland "square box" architecture that we get so often in DC...

Comment by Thayer-d

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:31:03 EDT

Amen Chris!

Comment by Chris

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:28:24 EDT

In this case the building to be replaced is relatively recent and undistinguished, so the new building seems like an improvement.

However, it seems to me that no matter how you tweak the aesthetics, the height is the height as far as neighbors in surrounding properties are concerned. But that far downtown 7 stories doesn't seem too unreasonable.

"This is why we live in a city folks."

Actually, this is why we live in DC and not Manhattan.

Comment by Ben

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:21:07 EDT

typo correction for first paragraph "aptly demonstrated"

Comment by nathaniel

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:48:50 EDT

"Rather than pushing for fewer floors, neighbors should push for better design and small changes at the corners that can make a difference in a neighborhood's look and feel."

Of course the assumption that is being made is that the neighbors really do worry about the look and feel. Forgive my cynicism, but I think in almost every place where the neighbors complain about these things, what they are really complaining about is density.

the col brooks project is a perfect example of the developer making a number of changes to the design and it still not being enough as evidence by the lawsuit that has been filed against.

Neighbors must understand that they won't stop projects and by throwing up unreasonable objections, they don't encourage developers to address their reasonable objections.

Comment by Thayer-d

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:47:44 EDT

This is an excellent illustration of how traditional design can be easily manipulated to be more pedestrian friendly and scalable to the street. This is the art of architecture that was lost when modernists took over most architectural schools. BTW, there are many newer modernist styled buildings that use these techniques of composition. That being said, there are certain sites where these ideas are irrelevant.

Comment by drumz

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:56:55 EDT

Rather than pushing for fewer floors, neighbors should push for better design and small changes at the corners that can make a difference in a neighborhood's look and feel. HPRB, meanwhile, should praise the architect for these changes and get the project on its way to being built as soon as possible.

Let's all repeat, "density is not the same as design and I will never say that those buildings are tall and will turn the neighborhood into (insert place with tall buildings that you hate for reasons unrelated to the height of the buildings)"

This is why we live in a city folks.